Alas, it is insufficient to observe that Congress will not do its job and instead allows the executive to set the agenda in nearly all matters, or worse, act independently, all while broadcasting internal dysfunction to the general public. A question as to why this choice is made must be examined in the long historical context of the incentives Congress faces relative to the executive branch. The short answer is that democratic pressure on the presidency to act legislatively undermines the ability of Congress to act legislatively. The perceived difference in Congress’s electoral legitimacy, made up of discrete elected individuals that act as a representational body for the country as a whole, is weak compared to the office of the president, chosen by the whole of the populace through popular election. The fact that there are some nuances regarding the Electoral College does not change the practical fact that the president is popularly elected, if occasionally without a majority of popular votes. The whole nation votes on the presidency and sees that voting process as fundamental in both the selection of the president and establishing legitimate authority to act on behalf of the whole.
The rise of this perception is reflected and encouraged in the rhetoric of presidents. A brief survey of rhetorical highlights of the evolution of presidential legitimacy to act for the whole illustrates the point.
The presidency’s rise as a democratic organ began early. Thomas Jefferson, despite benefiting from the Electoral College in a close and controversial election, expressed concerns regarding the popular divisions sown during the election and sought to mend those fences. Quickly thereafter, this evolved into an assertive view of the president as the representative of the people, beginning with Andrew Jackson.
Andrew Jackson fundamentally reshaped the presidency’s image as the democratic representative of the people and the best expression of the people’s will. This increased democratic pressure on the executive incentivized its expansion, at the expense of legislative and judicial power. Jackson consistently argued that his role was that of an interpreter of popular will. Casting his election as a contest between vested special interests and the people, Jackson argued for the popular primacy of the executive, declaring:
To the people belongs the right of electing their Chief Magistrate; it was never designed that their choice should in any case be defeated, either by the intervention of electoral colleges or by the agency confided, under certain contingencies, to the House of Representatives. Experience proves that in proportion as agents to execute the will of the people are multiplied there is danger of their wishes being frustrated. Some may be unfaithful; all are liable to err. So far, therefore, as the people can with convenience speak, it is safer for them to express their own will.